The whining about Pearson thread

[Alph]

12 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Of course some people think that the 'bizarre things' he did have no explanation and the only way to go is be a SMac II.

Others find it bizzare but are willing to accept there might be a valid (but hidden to them) reason for it and perhaps some of the squad could do with a dismantle!

Putting central midfielders on the left, players from left in the middle, leaving Hughes on the bench and playing Bryson deep has got no legs.

I'm all up for building on what we've got. But not asking people to do things they're crap at. Won't ever work. 

Hence he tried something on Tuesday much more suited and it was our best game

[Alph]

17 minutes ago, babylon said:

I'll refer you to all my posts and the ones I quoted, there was a lot of rubbish about him and us. I'm not going to defend specific decisions, he made some stupid ones with us... but, what he did do was always get it right in the end.

What I would say is... "work with what has been successful", personally for me you don't seem to have been that much more successful. Is that enough? To be in the playoffs rather than midtable?

People keep going on about a  "Derby Way" (quite frankly something I was never aware of despite spending most seasons in the same division). The aeason we were promoted and you finished 3rd I think?? We had a 53.3% posession rate compared to your 53.7%... yet we're seemingly painted as some non passing kick and rushers and you guys Brazil 1970.

Apparently we were playing worse football than Burnley who had an amazing 49% posession and a pass success rate near the bottom of the table.

 

To be honest I've got no interest in what he did at Leicester. It's not relevant. Bothroyd got promoted with Watford and Holloway with Blackpool and it's about as relevant as that. What worked here doesn't always work there. Totally irrelevant.

Do I call finishing 3rd afree being midtable for years success?

Yeah. Yes I do. What do you call it? 

I want him to build on that. And he started on Tuesday night I hope. When this thread was created it was because it looked like he was trying to bend players to what's worked for him in the past. 

But we, knowing our players and having seen them play all kinds of systems and seeing where they're weak and strong over time, doubted this would work.

So we said so. Then some moaned that we were criticising Pearson as a manager. Not true. And some that we had failed doing things our way.

Yet Tuesday night he played with a DM. He put Russell and Ince wide. Started Martin and Hughes. Played the best we've played so far. Still could be playing better but we looked like we have promise unlike the previous 2 games that look totally lost on our players.

We were asking him to build on what's here. Not tear it up to suit himself. And I'm starting to think it's worth a bet that he's realised what we have here. 

So yeah, build on our success.

Our success that people call failure. And I suppose it is when you consider all those trophies and decades of PL football we've hauled in the last 30 years. 

Jesus, if that's failure Wtf was getting 50 odd points?!?

[RoyMac5]

48 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Putting central midfielders on the left, players from left in the middle, leaving Hughes on the bench and playing Bryson deep has got no legs.

I'm all up for building on what we've got. But not asking people to do things they're crap at. Won't ever work. 

Hence he tried something on Tuesday much more suited and it was our best game

It could be that you need to try players in a game situation, rather than just in training, to know just what they can do when the pressure is on. We've seen what they can do when the pressure is off ie Hull 2nd leg.

[archied]

There's just a couple of quotes in these last few pages I question ( full faith in Pearson to let him do what's needed ) 

1 , was stated mclaren came in and improved the clough teams performances ,, yep but have we considered that he got the best they have and that was never quite enough?

2. Someone stated we should only play players in the way we've seen them play well and they stated that in their own work life they were better if only given job roles they were good at ,,, well I beg to differ , over the years I have had jobs to do that I struggled with initially and as such didn't particularly enjoy them at the start but by being extended found I could do far more than I thought and improved vastly ,, if we want Pearson to improve these players he has to extend them not only mentally but push them to improve parts of their game they and we may not feel is their strongest suit,, take will Hughes ,, I love him in his current role and was alarmed to see not only Pearson play him as the holding mid and think it a waist of his talent  but I'm beginning to wonder if the right coach got him playing the Thorne role kind of with his vision and reading of a game he may turn out to be something very very special,,, let's face it h Es not been nicked off us by bigger prem clubs yet for a reason,, maybe nobody really see s his real role yet ,, in short with our squad if Pearson is looking beyond what we already know what players are good at and trying to get them focusing and vastly improving what we think their weaknesses are that may go a massive way to being good enough not only to get up but play prem football longer term for them ,,, ready to be shot down but just a thought ,, I feel he is no mug and will give him time

[DCFCArmy]

Whining gets you nowhere, it just zaps any positive energy and ultimately causes negative energy which = a loss 

Pearson isn't an idiot, he knows what he needs to do ffs. w'ere on 4 points after 3 games, we were on 3 points after 3 games last season, Newcastle have had a shaky start as well, and most on here have given the title with 107 points record. 

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, archied said:

1 , was stated mclaren came in and improved the clough teams performances ,, yep but have we considered that he got the best they have and that was never quite enough?

2. Someone stated we should only play players in the way we've seen them play well and they stated that in their own work life they were better if only given job roles they were good at ,,, well I beg to differ...

1 was what I think

2 was kinda what I was trying to say.

"If you always do what you've always done, then you'll always get what you always got." Is the management speak.

[Seth's left foot]

There is no substitute for playing matches so Pearson rightly or wrongly wanted to try what maybe worked in training and will no doubt in my mind settle on a system over the next few games.

We don't know who if anybody is coming in to the club to freshen things up, in the meantime I agree that these players should be pushed out of their comfort zones to see if they sink or swim.

Preston was a big improvement, Saturday playing against a promotion rival will again tell me more about the players than Pearson.

[Alph]

2 hours ago, archied said:

There's just a couple of quotes in these last few pages I question ( full faith in Pearson to let him do what's needed ) 

1 , was stated mclaren came in and improved the clough teams performances ,, yep but have we considered that he got the best they have and that was never quite enough?

2. Someone stated we should only play players in the way we've seen them play well and they stated that in their own work life they were better if only given job roles they were good at ,,, well I beg to differ , over the years I have had jobs to do that I struggled with initially and as such didn't particularly enjoy them at the start but by being extended found I could do far more than I thought and improved vastly ,, if we want Pearson to improve these players he has to extend them not only mentally but push them to improve parts of their game they and we may not feel is their strongest suit,, take will Hughes ,, I love him in his current role and was alarmed to see not only Pearson play him as the holding mid and think it a waist of his talent  but I'm beginning to wonder if the right coach got him playing the Thorne role kind of with his vision and reading of a game he may turn out to be something very very special,,, let's face it h Es not been nicked off us by bigger prem clubs yet for a reason,, maybe nobody really see s his real role yet ,, in short with our squad if Pearson is looking beyond what we already know what players are good at and trying to get them focusing and vastly improving what we think their weaknesses are that may go a massive way to being good enough not only to get up but play prem football longer term for them ,,, ready to be shot down but just a thought ,, I feel he is no mug and will give him time

Few things,

McClaren did get the best out these players. 85 pts and league top scorers. It's certainly worth considering they weren't good enough. Don't throw it in the bin though!!! Build on it. 

It's worth considering that a better player here and there of the same breed or even a better coach would get 5 more points. 10 more points. 

Mac came in and saw Bryson wasn't a box to box player we used him as. Martin had superb team work but little pace. So he tapped into that by using Martin as sort of a pivot. He backed all this freedom up by instantly going for a proper DM. A shield for the defence. We just had players playing the best stuff of their careers. 

 

Hughes as a DM has been done before and the amazing thing about Hughes is he can do that role. 

He's a very good tackler. He's instinctively smart. His passing range is not as vast as Thorne's but it's still bigger than Hendrick or Bryson. The only reasons it won't work is because he can occasionally go closing down too eagerly and he's poor in the air. But with discipline he could learn it better. Naturally he fits there. We just miss the same attributes higher up. 

Clement used Hughes in 4231 and that looked ok. But he put Bryson next to him. To do what? The guy's best partner in the squad is Martin. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

He laughed at the idea of "happiness" in his interview.

Thus he does't want anyone to be happy ever.....BOOO!

[Pearson]

On 15/08/2016 at 10:25, cheron85 said:

Now I'm sure the mods will remove this if they feel the need but I'm trying to turn my posts in the rest of the forum into more Pearson-neutral posts... So I thought it might be nice to set up a thread specifically where those of us who are unimpressed by Pearson in general can rant about it in comfort...

I nearly cried when we appointed Pearson... He's a dreadful manager who advocates dreadful football... He was perfectly suited to Leicester who have a history of 'efficient' football (kick people and then run away with the ball)... But we DON'T... We are NOT Leeds...

 

That is your perception or opinion if you like as to how we should be set up. Pearson has his own perception in how we are set up which is more important than yours as he is the manager and has a greater insight in working with the players 5 days a week.

He will make his decisions irrespective of your opinion or criticism but will be measured on the success in terms of our league position.

To that end your posting, in my opinion, will read as tad embarrassing.

[Leicester Fan]

5 hours ago, cheron85 said:

A lot of people have quoted the tail end of Pearson's reign at Leicester as the reason he'd have been great... But as you and we both know there is a world of difference between a sustained push for the top of the table vs a late scrapping for your life finish the the season at the bottom end... The mentality of the players is different and the type of manager who perfects the 'great escape' over 10 games isn't usually the manager who wins titles...

It's a bit odd that he won League One with us and won the Championship amassing 102 points then isn't it? There's plenty of evidence that he's capable of both.
 

4 hours ago, Alpha said:

To be honest I've got no interest in what he did at Leicester. It's not relevant. Bothroyd got promoted with Watford and Holloway with Blackpool and it's about as relevant as that. What worked here doesn't always work there. Totally irrelevant.

It's the bulk of his history as a manager, how can it be totally irrelevant? You seem to be advocating a Fawaz 'appoint any old manager because who knows how it's going to work out' approach. Nigel Pearson has a fantastic record at this level and that should be very relevant to a club that aspires to get into the Premier League.

Compare Holloway, Boothroyd and Pearson's record in jobs where they had time to put together their own squad and backroom set-up and there's a clear gulf in class between Pearson and the other two.

 

 

6 hours ago, cheron85 said:

Then we should be getting a manager who can correct those problems... That's kinda the whole point...

Do you guys think you would have won the league last year with Pearson in charge? Or was it a different manager who managed to get something a little extra out of basically the same group of players?

Because that's what we need... Not a "scrap it all and start again" approach... 

Most of the people critical of Pearson on here so far, are basing it on poor tactics and selection choices at Derby. I think that it's a bit early to be doing it as venomously as some are. But there is at least a reasonable case to be made there - although those accusing him of being stubborn after two league games should probably feel a bit silly in the wake of the third. Based on your opening post and lots of posts on here, you are criticizing Pearson (and were critical of his appointment), based on a completely inaccurate reading of his record. You can hardly call it getting 'a little extra out of basically the same group of players', when we replaced Paul Konchesky with Christian Fuchs, David Nugent with Shinji Okazaki, had Robert Huth - who had been a vital part of transforming our defence - for the whole season, and added one of if not the best central midfielders in the Premier League in N'Golo Kante.

If people want to be critical of Nigel Pearson based on a few games as Derby manager then that's ridiculously premature and knee-jerk, but go for it. If they've got concerns about whether he was the right appointment for what higher ups at your club want to achieve then maybe there's a case. But it's obvious that you've (cheron) been critical before he even joined you, based on a complete lack of understanding about what he did at our club. Leicester fans are going to come on and be offended when you confidently put forward a completely misinformed version of our recent history to criticize a manger who is going to do a brilliant job for you.

[Van der MoodHoover]

Many fair points @Leicester Fan

For me, management  (in general) is 90% expectations management. Personally I am always careful with the language I use in taking a new job in order not to cause questions to arise. 

A lot of us including me, heard nigel pearsons early interviews and quotes from which we understood that nigels view was "minor tweaks"  only were needed and it was just about "helping the team to get over the line".

So we now see the actions and conclude that they're not consistent with those set expectations.

That's not to say that they're wrong. Just that we didn't know that they were necessary. 

It's very easy for all the hubbub to be calmed - just reset the expectations. If a new manager comes in and says "please just give me 6 months to fully appraise all the squad members which may include trying players in different positions to see what everyone is capable of " then the noise goes away.

I do agree though that we shouldn't be misguided in expressing any concerns about what nigel is doing at Derby by misunderstanding what he achieved at previous clubs. This is solely about the here and now. 

[JaguarRam]

Love the "he was a success at Leicester so he will be a success here" comments. No guarantees in football chaps.

Also the "massive rebuilding" job that will "take years to do" on a top 6 side that reached the play offs despite the management problems and injuries to key players last season.

We spent years building the "Derby Way" of good attacking football and if the first games are anything to go by then that has been thrown away. 

Anything less than play offs this season will be a failure. Simple as. 

[Saturn5]

18 hours ago, babylon said:

Another one who doesn't have a clue. The football we played under him was for me a better style than that of Ranieri, who has made us much more of a counter attacking team. Sitting back for huge periods now, but we were far more open under Pearson.

Defensive full backs WRONG... he played De Laet and Schlupp there who are both attacking full backs.

Quick wingers... he does like a quick winger in the squad... but then we also played with Mahrez and Knockaert neither of whom are quick, but are exceptional footballers.

Workers and blockers in midfield... yeah who wants people in midfield who work hard and put the effort in to win the ball back. If you think that's the sort of player Drinkwater is you have no idea, the boy can play. But he'll get his foot in when he has to.

Just going off what your Bin Dipping Bretheran have told me 

Wasn't Cambiasso more dominant in the team selection rather than Drinkwater ?

Marhez was largely frustrating and less effective under NP

Vardy Certainly not as explosive

Again just from your lot that i have to suffer at work.

Anyway welcme to the forum, i take it yours is as dull as your team and with as many new members (out from under your rocks)

[Sexydadbod]

13 hours ago, Alpha said:

Few things,

McClaren did get the best out these players. 85 pts and league top scorers. It's certainly worth considering they weren't good enough. Don't throw it in the bin though!!! Build on it. 

It's worth considering that a better player here and there of the same breed or even a better coach would get 5 more points. 10 more points. 

Mac came in and saw Bryson wasn't a box to box player we used him as. Martin had superb team work but little pace. So he tapped into that by using Martin as sort of a pivot. He backed all this freedom up by instantly going for a proper DM. A shield for the defence. We just had players playing the best stuff of their careers. 

 

Hughes as a DM has been done before and the amazing thing about Hughes is he can do that role. 

He's a very good tackler. He's instinctively smart. His passing range is not as vast as Thorne's but it's still bigger than Hendrick or Bryson. The only reasons it won't work is because he can occasionally go closing down too eagerly and he's poor in the air. But with discipline he could learn it better. Naturally he fits there. We just miss the same attributes higher up. 

Clement used Hughes in 4231 and that looked ok. But he put Bryson next to him. To do what? The guy's best partner in the squad is Martin. 

Just thought I'd correct you, Clement didn't play Hughes and Bryson together in a 4-2-3-1, that was Mac. Both Bryson and Hughes were injured whilst Clement was here. Poor Clement gets the blame for everything 

[tomsdubs]

I think Pearson is alright, we'll click and the goals will come. He's making us harder to beat which we've needed, perfect man for the job here.

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, tomsdubs said:

I think Pearson is alright, we'll click and the goals will come. He's making us harder to beat which we've needed, perfect man for the job here.

Off topic, you're not whining!

Can't believe lots of posters thought (taking into account NPs history) that he'd just tweak - what manager does that?!!! But anyway at the minute that is all he's really done isn't it?

[Cool As Custard]

 

Now we can see how Nigel got the job and who Mel used to facilitate the interview.....

[Alph]

7 hours ago, McLovin said:

Just thought I'd correct you, Clement didn't play Hughes and Bryson together in a 4-2-3-1, that was Mac. Both Bryson and Hughes were injured whilst Clement was here. Poor Clement gets the blame for everything 

You're right. It's where we played ok until Lee Grant went on Wolves side and Forsyth went colour blind

[Ramarena]

Game four tomorrow folks, time to really lay into our manger I say!